Comments on: What’s Wrong with “Dwarf Planet”?

By: changcho

changcho — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:27:57 +0000

I’ll keep it short: very well said!

By: ccp

ccp — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:23:44 +0000

Laurel, your comment that people who have contacted the IAU feel unheard is one I’ve heard before. No idea why they don’t want to respond to people but as you point out, they’re standing by their decision, however flawed it may be. It strikes me that that isn’t any more scientific than what the Illinois lege did. I don’t know. It’s unfortunate though, because the last action left things quite unsettled, as we’ve all noticed.

I was amused by the state of New Mexico’s decision on the Pluto matter — they’ve designed Tombaugh’s birthday Pluto Planet Day.

Illinois’s decision may be symbolic, but it still gives the impression that science can be fiddled with by lawmakers. That is no more fair than the IAU decision to not revisit the issue. Will you also stand by and let the Illinois lege decide that the chemical element Iodine should be reclassified as a liquid? Or be renamed Illinoisium? Probably not. They wouldn’t, but this is essentially what Illinois has done with the classification of Pluto. Let the science world figure it out. It may be slow and the Pluto/planet decision disturbing in some ways, and some members may be pigheaded about it, but it’s in the realm of science, not political voting or popular emotion.

Thanks for coming back to discuss this further.

By: Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:17:59 +0000

I disagree that your views or the views of non-IAU members have little weight in this matter. They do. The IAU claims they’re interested in communicating astronomy with the public, but the way they have handled this, not just at the General Assembly, but in the two-and-a-half years since–has been with complete contempt and disrespect toward the public. The Illinois legislature is making a symbolic statement; they have no illusions that anyone is required to follow their proclamation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the IAU, which expects the whole world to blindly bow to its decree.

Significantly, neither I nor any of the many people I know of who contacted the IAU about this ever received even an acknowledgment of their communication and concern. The leadership of the IAU has already stated it does not want to reopen this issue. The IAU made the mess, but they don’t want to take the responsibility for cleaning it up. To me, this is a problem.

For more on scientific arguments on why Pluto is a planet, feel free to visit my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com

By: ccp

ccp — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:13:36 +0000

Laurel, I stand by the statement that having legislators determine scientific definitions like the one where a state is calling Pluto a planet as crap. But let me restate it: It’s a waste of time and money and is unscientific. I meant no disrepect to the people who want to honor Tombaugh — I think there could have been a much better way to do this, but having legislators pull these stunts just cements in the public mind that science is up for legislation (and perhaps for sale) to anybody with enough time and/or money to influence a few votes. That’s not the way science works. Appeals to emotion (such as telling us children will be harmed because Pluto’s not a planet anymore (which I’ve seen in many arguments) or appeals to honoring the discoverer of Pluto (who, I think might well have not approved of having a non-scientific body pass a LAW about the object he found) are not any better. I am arguing for scientific accuracy and standards of science nomenclature to be strong — not that we let legislators determine what is and isn’t a planet/correct definition of pi, etc.

As for the IAU, I am aware of the political machinations in that body’s decision about Pluto, and perhaps what they did could also be termed crap. They have a chance to fix this and perhaps they will. However, the Illinois legislature — or any state legislature — isn’t any better a “blind authority” than the IAU, yet you would suggest that we bow to what they want us to think? I’m not buying it.

As you suggest, the IAU could fix this by accepting that dwarf planets are a class of planets. And, in my mind, they could also rethink their definition of planet so that it makes more scientific sense. I’m not a member, so my feelings have little weight in the matter. But their actions dismayed me, too.

I appreciate your writing in response to the blog entry about this — whether we agree or not, it does keep the subject in the air and I still maintain that this is a teachable moment — both from the standpoint of how science works as well as that of not submitting to blind authority in matters scientific — whether that blind authority is a statehouse crew tha wants to please a constituent or a scientific body with responsibility for keeping names and classifications straight for both science and the public.